|
Next: OEM Honda parts books for sale
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 316
|
(Msg. 91) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>autos>honda (more info?)
|
|
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop RemoveThis @nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-ADD9FE.08461509022008@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
>
> But as pointed out, there is such a law elsewhere.
>
> What does that say about you, Brian?
What does it say about you, that you didn't know that there are no such
laws here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Feb 15, 2004
Posts: 1073
|
(Msg. 92) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 316
|
(Msg. 93) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 20, 2006
Posts: 1210
|
(Msg. 94) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Brian Smith wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:B9irj.952$qw4.365@trnddc02...
>> There is no such law in the US.
>
> Nor in Canada.
>
>
but there is - it was cited earlier. you guys are apparently not too
familiar with reading legal stuff. either that or you're clutching at
straws because you don't like the facts. >> Stay informed about: Radar Detector Recomendation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 316
|
(Msg. 95) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex RemoveThis @bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:0fGdnaZCvJnkITDanZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> whoops.
>
> IF (facts don't agree with entrenched position) THEN (call poster a
> liar) ELSE (look ridiculous).
If traffic flowed into town at 95 MPH, there would be a lot of
collisions when it reached the first traffic light and the vehicle in front
stopped (according to the law) and the people behind didn't due to
inattention and the fact that they were breaking the law. >> Stay informed about: Radar Detector Recomendation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 20, 2006
Posts: 1210
|
(Msg. 96) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Brian Smith wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex RemoveThis @bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:0fGdnaZCvJnkITDanZ2dnUVZ_uHinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> whoops.
>>
>> IF (facts don't agree with entrenched position) THEN (call poster a
>> liar) ELSE (look ridiculous).
>
> If traffic flowed into town at 95 MPH, there would be a lot of
> collisions when it reached the first traffic light and the vehicle in front
> stopped (according to the law) and the people behind didn't due to
> inattention and the fact that they were breaking the law.
sorry brian, that wasn't the case. i was there. i was looking at my
speedo. we were all doing the same speed, keeping the same distance.
no accidents because there was no speed differential. >> Stay informed about: Radar Detector Recomendation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 316
|
(Msg. 97) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex RemoveThis @bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:NvadnbNw4cBBIzDanZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> but there is - it was cited earlier. you guys are apparently not too
> familiar with reading legal stuff. either that or you're clutching at
> straws because you don't like the facts.
Let me clear this up for you, Jim. There is no such law in this part of
Canada. What you do in your little portion of Yankeetown is of no
consequence to the rest of the world. >> Stay informed about: Radar Detector Recomendation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 20, 2006
Posts: 1210
|
(Msg. 98) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Brian Smith wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex RemoveThis @bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:NvadnbNw4cBBIzDanZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> but there is - it was cited earlier. you guys are apparently not too
>> familiar with reading legal stuff. either that or you're clutching at
>> straws because you don't like the facts.
>
> Let me clear this up for you, Jim. There is no such law in this part of
> Canada. What you do in your little portion of Yankeetown is of no
> consequence to the rest of the world.
>
>
good job you live there! >> Stay informed about: Radar Detector Recomendation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 316
|
(Msg. 99) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex.TakeThisOut@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:NvadnbBw4cAyIzDanZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> eh? so what /are/ the rules of the road then? stick to the speed limit
> or keep up with prevailing speed? there's a logical disconnect in your
> argument.
Perhaps you should take an English comprehension course. >> Stay informed about: Radar Detector Recomendation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 20, 2006
Posts: 1210
|
(Msg. 100) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Brian Smith wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex.TakeThisOut@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:NvadnbBw4cAyIzDanZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> eh? so what /are/ the rules of the road then? stick to the speed limit
>> or keep up with prevailing speed? there's a logical disconnect in your
>> argument.
>
> Perhaps you should take an English comprehension course.
i'm simply pointing out the logical flaw in your argument. because you
can't or won't deal with that doesn't mean it's anything to do with me. >> Stay informed about: Radar Detector Recomendation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 21, 2007
Posts: 1219
|
(Msg. 101) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <plirj.18427$w57.13062@edtnps90>,
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax.TakeThisOut@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>
>>> But as pointed out, there is such a law elsewhere.
>>>
>>> What does that say about you, Brian?
>> What does it say about you, that you didn't know that there are no such
>> laws here?
>
> The discussion wasn't about the laws where you were. You said flat-out
> that there were no such laws, period. Now all of the sudden you've
> changed what you say to "no such laws here"?
>
> Which is it?
>
> You lost this one. Best to remain quiet about it.
Why don't you show us that there is such a law in the US that makes it
illegal to go less than the prevailing speed even if that is over the
posted speed limit?
jeff >> Stay informed about: Radar Detector Recomendation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 15, 2004
Posts: 1073
|
(Msg. 102) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 20, 2006
Posts: 1210
|
(Msg. 103) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <CMjrj.939$r03.617@trnddc08>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000 RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you show us that there is such a law in the US that makes it
>> illegal to go less than the prevailing speed even if that is over the
>> posted speed limit?
>
> If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
> show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
>
 >> Stay informed about: Radar Detector Recomendation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 17, 2007
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 104) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop.DeleteThis@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B93D6B.12032309022008@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <CMjrj.939$r03.617@trnddc08>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000.DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Why don't you show us that there is such a law in the US that makes it
>> illegal to go less than the prevailing speed even if that is over the
>> posted speed limit?
>
> If it's law to follow the posted signs, then will you shut up when I
> show you a posted highway sign that says "Slower Traffic Keep Right"?
Why don't you show him that there is a law in the US that makes it illegal
to go less than the prevailing speed even if that is over the posted speed
limit?
Answer: You can not.
Polfus >> Stay informed about: Radar Detector Recomendation |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 15, 2004
Posts: 1073
|
(Msg. 105) Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Radar Detector Recomendation [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
